Former candidate for president, and McCain’s ally in the Senate, Fred Thompson has officially endorsed John McCain (h/t: Memeorandum):
Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to “close ranks” behind the presumed nominee.
“This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain,” Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.
[...]
The endorsement now may help McCain to coalesce the factions of the party around him. Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the Senate for eight years, is thought of well in the South, an area that McCain has not done well in.
I predicted a few weeks ago that Thompson would endorse McCain, although I figured it would happen before Florida.
The other big endorsement? Our tough-as-nails former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton:
John Bolton used his speech at CPAC to pursaude restive conservatives that the stakes in the world (the Iranian and North Korean nuclear threats, the prospect of nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic terrorists) were too great to sit this election out because of their disagreements with John McCain, and allow the Democrats to gain control of foreign policy.
Bolton said it was now clear that he would be the nominee, and specifically addressed those who argue that conservatives would be better off in the long run if Democrats win and mess things up than if mistakes are associated with a Republican. He compared this logic to Vladimir Lenin’s declaration that “worse is better” and said that “tactical domestic considerations” shouldn’t be allowed to harm our national security.
Here’s a video snippet from Bolton’s endorsement at CPAC (via Flopping Aces):
While it’s arguable that Thompson may be angling for something (consideration for VP, perhaps?) John Bolton is not. Bryan at Hot Air makes a very persuasive argument here:
If the choice is between a view supported by John Bolton, a man who has been in the arena and fought the fights with his own fists, and a view supported by Ann Coulter, well, Bolton’s view is probably the one that will ultimately win out.
Sam Stein says Bolton is batting for McCain in the hope that McCain wins and names him SecState. No way. Bolton cares about the war and national security and wants to see America protected from jihadists. Bolton knows that neither of the Democrat contenders get it. He sees McCain as the superior choice. Bolton also knows that there’s no way he could get through the Democrat Senate and be confirmed as SecState. Sometimes a tree is just a tree, folks.
And contrary to Michelle Malkin’s assertion that the endorsements coming McCain’s way are about “submission” to McCain, an assertion that conservatives (like myself) who have put a lot of thought into announcing their support of McCain should resent, it’s not. No one is suggesting that we shouldn’t still have policy disagreements with McCain, and no one is suggesting that we stop openly criticizing McCain. What most of the critics of Rush, Sean Hannity, and others are saying is that certain criticisms border on the “Kossack-like” - and that these critics, by amplifying their rhetoric, are giving plenty of ammunition to the opposition for the general election campaign season.
Republicans/conservatives alike should be able to disagree - and passionately so - without treating the eventual nominee like he’s going to “destroy” the country. He’s not. Yes, let’s have these debates about McCain’s record, but let’s also not lose sight of The Big Picture and the candidates whose main interest is to turn this country into some sort of Socialist’s utopia. If we spent as much time hammering Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as the party has been John McCain, it would give the general public the opportunity to see what a bad idea a presidency under the eventual Dem nominee would actually be.
I leave you with the words of Bill at INDC, who doesn’t consider himself a conservative on certain issues, but who has been to Iraq twice, and has published pieces and pictures about his visits, some of which I’ve referenced here. He’s given me permission to re-post some of the comments he made during a recent email exchange he, I, and several other bloggers were a part of related to the debate over a McCain nomination:
But that aside, I have overriding feelings about one issue: a lot of brave people have given their lives, limbs and peace of mind to the two wars we are engaged in, one of which we are finally, remarkably and probably decisively winning at this point. That said, having researched the topic extensively and embedded with the Marines in Anbar twice, I know that true victory will require stabilization of the Iraqi government, which will require American advisership and honest brokerage of their administration and political process through at least 2010, possibly 2012.
And the Democrats –especially Obama – have been explicit about their intent to abandon Iraq, whereas McCain has been just the opposite.
Now, I tend to counsel conseratives to think about this election without emotion: “Pick the lesser of two evils,” I say. “Think of 3 more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs on the Supreme Court for 15-20 years.” “Please consider the sacrifice in lives and resources on the Iraq war, and the threat of global jihad.”
But when I stray from dry analysis and think about what matters to me, I think of guys like Travis Manion (http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/003114.php) fighting and dying to eradicate al Qaeda and stabilize Iraq. A guy shot through the heart in filthy Fallujah streets, while we fling around political nicknames for people on domestic issues. I think of the US military basically shouldering this burden alone in American society.
And when I think about folks talking about letting the Democrats waste that young man’s life merely because they don’t want to pick the (far) lesser of two evils, I have a hard time not getting really pissed off.
No offense intended to those expressing their political principles in good faith, but that’s how I feel.
We’ve got nine months til the general election, which gives conservatives who are unsure at this stage of what they’re going to do plenty of time to think about the decision they are going to make. I implore these conservatives to keep their minds open to the possibility of voting for McCain. Bill, who is far from a partisan, makes one of the most convincing cases I’ve seen for a Mc presidency. I hope while conservatives are deliberating these next few months over what to do, that they keep arguments like Bill’s in mind.
Related: 2/8/08: McCain challenges Democratic rivals on Iraq war
Prior:
| Email This Post | Print This |
Well said, Mr. Bolton.
We all saw the results of an 8 year Clinton foreign policy once before. I cannot in good conscience sit this election out because of my differences with McCain.
Comment by NC Cop @ 2/9/2008 - 12:25 pm
im so tired of the McCain bs - it is nothing but hysterics at this point. Reagan was called a RINO as well, early on in his presidency. I’m not in love with him but his record is solidly conservative - maybe not AS conservative as I’d like but still across the board, solidly conservative and very different than what the left has to offer.
if “pure as white snow” conservatives want to sit this out and give every branch of government over to the left (the GOP has no real shot of gaining seats in the house or senate) then they deserve whatever they get. I would just remind them that the strategy didn’t work too well in 2006 - in fact their favorite target during that time is pretty much the nominee.
Comment by sodaboy @ 2/9/2008 - 1:52 pm
John Bolton and others have very logical and informed reasons for supporting John McCain. The thing is, many of us feel, actually know, that we have been backed into a cornor and if we don’t accept the establishment candidate, McCain, we will have Sorros backed Clinton or OBama. Also, the primary setup is corrupt and open to manipulation while excluding later voting states from participating in the process. My vote will be determined by the choice of Vice President which will undoubtedly come from the same political insiders who fastened on their candidate McCain. If they can select a strong candidate who is able to bring a measure of unity to the ticket in November, Republicans might win.
Comment by ruth @ 2/9/2008 - 1:59 pm
good article by Bennett
Comment by sodaboy @ 2/9/2008 - 2:48 pm
ST wrote, “without treating the eventual nominee like he’s going to “destroy” the country.”
Amen.
Have some perspective people. Words mean things.
John McCain would be not the lesser of two evils if voted for… he would be a positive move forward for this country on most subject matters.
Perspective is important in life.
Leave the crisis mongering for liberals. They are the non-thinking, non-fact oriented, feeling, without perspective folks who can be defeated in a debate if we stick to facts.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/9/2008 - 4:12 pm
“words mean things” is exactly why McCain is held in such distain by many of us. Anyway, as things stand now he is the party nominee and Republicans have to go with the hand they have been dealt. My suggestion for unification of the party, if such is wanted, is the choice of a Vice President who clearly has the conservative interests in mind. Given McCain’s age and physical liabilities, the VP may well have to assume the Presidential mantle at some point. Therefore, we need to know in depth the VP’s background. I also think that holding the patriotism of anti McCain folks hostage for the sake of our military should be balanced by doing the same for the McCain people as regards the choice of VP. I have to say that my family creds go back to WW1 and WW2 up thru this current Iraq war. We have a bunch of current family members serving in the military as well as a number retired. The war is always a consideration for our political choices but we do not always back the same candidate. Let us see how sincere the McCain people are in meeting the disinchanted among us part way. Then we can talk more about patriotism.
Comment by ruth @ 2/9/2008 - 5:17 pm
When the MSM turns on McCain like the pack of rapid dogs they are. Good conservatives from all walks of life will surround McCain and be a shield about him. He might not have been the best candidate out of the lot, but He is our candidate, and even if we aren’t all that happy with this choice, we ain’t about to let some left wing puke from the MSM trash him. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/9/2008 - 5:34 pm
ST, “policy disagreements with McCain”, but more with Dems I am sure.
Comment by stackja @ 2/9/2008 - 7:52 pm
Political cycles are real and an Obama or Clinton (black or woman) Presidency is a given. It is the perfect storm of identity politics and the American public will be eager to show their anti-racist/anti-sexist credentials while their instincts push for a change anyway.
The only thing that can be accomplished by supporting McCain is the marginalization of social conservatives (Christian voters). Christian voters can either vote themselves out of political influence by supporting McCain or they can make use of an otherwise losing vote by showing the Republican party that the Party will have to find other voters. They can fight with Democrats for the pro-abortion, anti-family values voters.
The real “suicide voters” will be those Chrisians/social conservatives who support McCain.
Comment by mikem @ 2/9/2008 - 10:15 pm
I must say that I find Bill’s comment extremely insulting. Boil down what he is saying and it comes down to is that I would rather see soldiers die than compromise some slight and unimportant principle. Worse, he’s saying that I’m willing to see those soldiers killed rather than to stop and think.
Forgive the language (and do feel free to edit as appropriately), but that is horseshit and it makes me very angry indeed. That’s anything but a cogent argument, Sister T. It’s lazy and it’s the same crap that the left pulls on the right all the time.
If that’s where the conversation on this matter is going to go, then I’ll be quite glad to walk away from folks who assume at best my ignorance and at worst purposeful negligence and believe that I wish our soldiers ill.
And it doesn’t wash away with “no offense intended”. There is no way that you can make that argument without following it to its logical, repulsive, and exactly wrong conclusion.
Comment by Jimmie @ 2/10/2008 - 12:07 am
Jimmie, Bill’s argument isn’t that anybody “wishes” that would happen, but that it will happen if we sit back and let the Democrats win this fall. And he’s right. In fact, these are the same arguments conservatives have persuasively made ever since the WOT began - that a victory to Democrats in Congress and/or in the WH will mean defeat for our troops, and that they will have died in vain because the Democrats will waste no time pulling them out before the mission is complete. That argument still holds true today, and is most definitely not an argument you’ll find on a lefty blog.
Both Hillary and Obama have both said it’s time for the war to be over and our troops to come home and have plans to start withdrawals within a couple months of their taking office. The Democrat Congress will eagerly help them every step of the way. This is a cold hard fact that none of us should ignore.
Nope, not a matter of “wishing” or “hoping” or “would rather” our troops died in vain, but nonetheless, a matter of reality - their deaths will be in vain if we sit back and do nothing. The arguments we made 2, 4, and 6 years ago haven’t changed. The only thing that has changed are the faces of the candidates.
This argument isn’t about principle, either, as we decide which principles are important to us each election cycle because no candidate ever matches up perfectly with our principles (this is an issue I addressed here).
These are all things conservatives need to think about going into the general election. We’re all grown-ups who can think through their decisions to their logical conclusions.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/10/2008 - 9:59 am
BTW, this thread will be the last one I do for a while on the issue of whether or not people should support McCain. There’s a lot being written out there about this right now, and at this point conservatives who are still on the fence about the issue need time to think about it - I certainly don’t want to beat a dead horse and look like I’m force-feeding my opinion down their throats. When I was a liberal, people were constantly trying to persuade me to think a different way and I pushed back every time out of spite. I don’t want that to happen here.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/10/2008 - 10:15 am
Comment by Lorica @ 2/10/2008 - 10:47 am
If we keep holding our noses and voting, we will continue to get stinky candidates.
Comment by Jay In Md. @ 2/10/2008 - 12:05 pm
Sister T, I understand that you and Bill believe that, but at least in Hillary Clinton’s case, it’s not supported by the evidence. Indeed, she caught serious flak from inside her own party for not calling for an immediate withdrawal of the troops from Iraq. She was derided as a “hawk” and I’ve read at least three quite serious essays that contend, with good reasoning, that based on how she’s voted, she would continue to be a hawk. Now, she may not be the hawk we want, but that doesn’t equate her to Obama.
I think that we all need to remember that we are conservatives, the folks who come to our decisions only after we have collected evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion. I’m confident that my arguments are coming from that point of view. I’m not sure that Bill’s is.
Comment by Jimmie @ 2/10/2008 - 1:04 pm
Jimmie, Hillary Clinton is no hawk, contrary to the assertions of the likes of Bill Kristol, among other notable conservatives - that’s something I will address at a later date on this blog.
Your post also assumes that Hillary will be the nominee. If she’s not, that leaves a clearly dovish Barack Obama in control of our armed forces. I’m not willing to chance either scenario by a no vote or a vote for the Dem candidate, or a write-in. There’s too much at stake in Iraq and beyond, and I will never trust Hillary or Obama, who will work hand in hand with Democrats in Congress who we all know are eager to roll back the progress that has been made in the GWOT, with control of our national security.
I think as someone who has been to Iraq twice as an embed and written extensively about what he’s seen there, Bill’s assertions are not merely from the heart, but logically sound as well. He’s just come to a different conclusion on the issue of a McCain vote than others who have said they won’t support McCain. That doesn’t mean he’s thought about it any less than anyone else.
My only request at this point is for conservatives who are still undecided about McCain to keep their minds open. We’ve got several months to go, and McCain’s got a lot of ground to cover with skeptical conservatives in order to try and win their votes - not only that, but we’re going to learn a lot more about Hillary’s and Obama’s foreign policy plans. Let’s see what happens.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/10/2008 - 1:59 pm
“We’ve got several months to go, and McCain’s got a lot of ground to cover with skeptical conservatives in order to try and win their votes…”
He does and I have no doubt that a true war hero and victim of the Fonda/Kerry veteran smear machine who turns on his defenders and fellow Vietnam War veterans, AKA SBVT, is politically ambitious enough to mouth any words needed without regard to his intentions or beliefs.
I wouldn’t trust the guy with any issue that I felt was important, including the Iraq War. He is the compromiser, remember? Clinton or Obama may be worse, but are unavoidable. Democrats are going to win the presidential election.
You got to hand it to the MSM and their gushing McCain coverage. They actually fooled a lot of Republicans that a MSM crossover might be achieved if only they nominated a “moderate” Republican. Now it’s a win/win for them.
Comment by mikem @ 2/10/2008 - 5:47 pm
Jimmie -
First, regarding this:
I understand that you and Bill believe that, but at least in Hillary Clinton’s case, it’s not supported by the evidence.
Go back and reread my comment. I said “especially Obama.” I actually think Hillary might be too cynical to do anything too drastic, though I am also confident that she would harm the overall policy. Obama has backed himself into a very tight corner on Iraq, however.
Second, it’s unfortunate that you are insulted. But there are two components to my argument: the first is a rational calculation about the fact that a McCain presidency is better for conservatives on a host of issues, most notably the war on terror.
The second is an emotional consideration: those who supported the war, but are caught up on the “principle” of not voting for McCain, should instead consider the “principle” of wasting the sacrifice generated by the policy that they supported, which - as conservatives have argued since 9-11 - trumps domestic issues in a time of war.
On both points, conservatives who support the war but refuse to vote for McCain are not effectively weighing costs/benefits and also lacking prioritization of cherished principles, in my opinion. I repeat: we are at war.
Now regarding how I feel; given that people I know and care about have died in the two wars we are fighting, and that my brother is over in Afghanistan …
… I honestly don’t care whether you are offended at me being pissed that some war supporters plan to throw their vote and the policy they supported away, especially if it’s Obama in the general.
I bear no ill will toward you, but your offense really doesn’t phase me or change my feeling on the matter.
Comment by Bill from INDC @ 2/10/2008 - 8:16 pm
Oh and one other thing:
I’m actually saying a variation of that; that you think McCain’s domestic problems are more critical than finishing a policy that demanded such huge sacrifices - lives, money and the prestige of this country.
However you look at the conservative’s calculus of choosing a D over McCain - rationally, whether it’s the impact on Iraq policy or the unrelated issue of a democrat alternative appointing 3 Ruth Bader Ginsbergs to the SCOTUS, or just emotionally, thinking about the lives lost in this war, it’s wrong, in my analysis.
The latter example is specifically contingent on you having supported the invasion of Iraq in the first place and continuing to support the policy. If you didn’t and/or you don’t, this does not apply to you.
Comment by Bill from INDC @ 2/10/2008 - 8:31 pm
Hogwash.
In order to for America to survive this war we must be able to survive our own politicians first and foremost. This will not happen, especially if the status quo of the “socialist Republican” is maintained. It plays to the complacency of Americans, just like the Democrat’s socialist do. There is no difference.
You make the feable claim that we should support McCain because the GWoT takes priority yet fail to recognize the overwhelming disparity his Amnesty policies would have on the GWoT. It is a paradox- one simply can not support one policy and claim to support the other. “I repeat: we are at war.” has become nothing more than a Republican shill’s chant. Yes, we are at war, and it is with an entity who’s immediate danger is much greater than Al Queda: The American Politician. Unfortunately, the many Republicans are included in this, such as Juan McCain. They no longer represent conservative principals and the the vast gaping abyss that has formed between Republicans and Conservatives. It’s a damed shame IMO when the closest thing the Republicans had to offer to a Conservative is a Libertarian- Ron Paul (God help us).
I am sorry, but it is the folks who support McCain in this election who are lacking prioritation of Conservative principals, IMHO of course. At this point in time I will sit out if Obama is the Democratic nominee, but if sHillary is it then she gets my vote. America needs slapped in the face with high taxation and real economic wores, and she is the person who can do.
Comment by TedintheShed @ 2/11/2008 - 2:31 pm
IBD agrees with ST and Bill.
I’m not sure I completely agree that the mission in Iraq is going to be the reason to vote for McCain. It’s going so well right now that by November we may be ready to wind things down regardless of who wins. Here’s more evidence, as reported in the WaPo this past Sunday. Best line of the story:
If AQ’s back is broken by then, citing Iraq as a reason for McCain won’t be nearly as effective as it is now, or would have been six months ago.
But the IBD editorial raises another excellent point, one that has me rethinking whether to sit this one out, namely, appointments to the Supreme Court.
Assuming the WOT is won beyond the damage Obama or Clinton could do to it, Ted might have a point that we need shock therapy like high taxes and economic stagflation to get voters thinking right again. And it’s true that those policies came be overcome in time, once a conservative gets in the White House. To that extent, Ted’s right.
BUT could we roll back the effect a leftist President would have on SCOTUS appointments? No. This is what Ted overlooks. And given the left’s proclivity to try to get what they want by judicial fiat when the voters and their elected representatives disagree, I’m not sure we can risk letting Empty Suit or Hildebeest pack the court with Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones.
Just another angle to consider….
Comment by Great White Rat @ 2/12/2008 - 9:06 pm